H.R. 1925

[jacksoni]

Is the racing community aware of this bill?  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1925
Though most of it applies to south east Utah, the Great Basin area I believe includes the Bonneville Salt Flats as a general area. The flats are not included specifically as far as I can see but if so, racing I expect would be excluded. I'd appreciate some comment from the locals in the know.  I know there are controversies about this bill and is opposed by the Utah Congressmen in its mechanisms more than the what is trying to be done which I suspect most of us would support.  More info?

[Glen]

The salt flats are located in the north west part of the state

[jacksoni]

I know, Glen.  My point is the Great Basin area includes the Great Salt Lake Desert area ( lake and the flats) and Black Rock desert in Nevada as well as much of western Utah and most of Nevada ( per map in Wikipedia). The bill does not specify the Bonneville area but lots of other stuff and my concern was the non specificity that might end up being included generally rather than excluded specifically. Indeed, most of what the bill is trying to protect is in South East Utah but is throwing a wide net. One Maryland congressman ( not my district) is a co- sponsor. I am trying to figure if I need to let mine know our concern.

[McRat]

I don't imagine Texans like New Yorkers telling them how to manage their lands, and I don't see how this would be different.

Personally, unless it's for national defense or Indian land, land use should be dictated by people of the state, not the Feds.

Teddy Roosevelt set up the National Park system, simply because there was no effective state control at the time.  I really doubt his intent was abolish state's rights as far as land usage goes.

Nobody but the affected states should be voting on such issues. 

[jacksoni]

I agree. I believe all the involved area is controlled by the BLM though, as are the flats, so the Feds are involved already. I think the bill is to force the BLM in some different direction.  I know there is controversy but I'd be much happier if such legislation were from the Utah delegation than New York as McRat points out.

[bbarn]

McRat for President, you get my vote! 

Keep your stinking mitts off my stuff Mr. Fed!!!

[McRat]

I would run for President, but the Anarchist Party is never taken seriously... 

[bbarn]

I would run for President, but the Anarchist Party is never taken seriously... 

Maybe you (we) just haven't given them a reason to take the party seriously?

That's all I have to say on the subject. Mr. Fed, please stop reading now.

[LittleLiner]

I don't imagine Texans like New Yorkers telling them how to manage their lands, and I don't see how this would be different.

Personally, unless it's for national defense or Indian land, land use should be dictated by people of the state, not the Feds.

Teddy Roosevelt set up the National Park system, simply because there was no effective state control at the time.  I really doubt his intent was abolish state's rights as far as land usage goes.

Nobody but the affected states should be voting on such issues. 

From a pure states rights standpoint I could agree but sometimes issues within a state have impact on other states or at least the people of other states.  For example wouldn't folks from other states be affected if the state of Utah decided to do something to ruin the Salt Flats.  Yeah I know that the flats are already under BLM control.  I just use that example to show that sometimes the local state does not hold the only valid interest to land use within the state.   

I tried to read the bill but lawyer stuff like this makes my head spin.  Could someone summarize what the issue is?

[McRat]

I didn't read it all the way through, but here's a good indicator:  If the state affected has allocated any of the land for a school, the Feds will trade them for another parcel elsewhere.

Huh?  Not even land that has been approved for state use is safe?  Exactly how does somebody from Kentucky know what the school needs are in Utah? 

[floydjer]

One thing I know about lawyers, Once you open the door,it`s too late.

[LittleLiner]

I didn't read it all the way through, but here's a good indicator:  If the state affected has allocated any of the land for a school, the Feds will trade them for another parcel elsewhere.

Huh?  Not even land that has been approved for state use is safe?  Exactly how does somebody from Kentucky know what the school needs are in Utah? 

I see your point.  But would you agree that the particular piece of land and it's importance statewide, nationwide or worldwide might have to be a consideration?  An example might be right here in my state.  Would we want to feds to interseed if the community that had the land where flight 93 went down had decided to build a school on that parcel?  I have another example, right here in York we have the only remaining untouched military prisoner of war encampment from the revolutionary war.  The only one.  The property owners sold it to a developer a while back.  If left up to the community government that land would be town houses right now.   

This is not to say that the particular bill we are talking about here is a good idea.

By the way - aside from all this - that 157 run at Elmo was impressive . . .

[McRat]

Thanks.  But I went 163mph with the "cheap" engine.   

We've had a bad year at Elmo, not once could we get full power out of the engine.

The engine shuts 1/3 of fuel off at 153mph (and stays down) for unknown reasons, and only at Elmo.  There is something hidden in the factory computer that I can't see.
After two 14x passes slowing down through the traps, I "fixed" it by upping the fuel 33% everywhere.  Uh, what about when I'm less than 153?  OPPSS!!  It did this SnapCracklePop routine until it got up to speed.  So I traded HP going up to 153, for HP after 153, hence the 157.  I'm pretty sure we will break 175mph with this setup at Elmo, I just can't prove it.

[LittleLiner]

I stand corrected.  163 it is.  Even more impressive.   

My bucket list includes attending a meet at Elmo - hopefully next year.

BTW - I think we stole this thread.  Jon is gonna get us!!!!.

[Seldom Seen Slim]

Nah, I applaud you.  I'm not a big fan of arguing politics (or religion, or telling a woman her baby is ugly), so straying to race stuff is fine with me.

I didn't read the afore-mentioned proposed legislation so won't comment on it.

Okay, back to your regular program now.